The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-09-13
A DEFENSE THAT DOES NOT DEFEND.
lean employees.

We have been waiting to see what CeIense
the Sentinel would make of the removal of
DR.. Fletcher from the superintendency of the
Insane Hospital. Several days have elapsed
since the consummation of the outrage, and
public opinion is practically unanimous in
condemning the act; but a matter of Gu
riosity it was worth observing what the party
organ would say. As a thick andthin de.
fender of everything done by the Coy gang
and the Harrison ring, it was bound to at
tempt some defense, and it has done go. It
justifes the removal of Dr. Fletcher two
grounds first, on the principle Of rotation in
office, and, second, that the records show as
large percentage of cures among the inmates
of the Indiana Insane Hospital as of any
other in the world from which it concludes
that the management of the institution is all
that it should be, and first-class in every
res pect 1t may puzzle some to know how
these points can be brought to bear on the
case or used in constructing a defense for the
trustees. Regarding rotation in office, the
Sentinel says, "When Grant followed John
as President he promptly began the work
of removing government officials and en-
ployes," and "when Hayes succeeded Grant
he did the same thing" Hence it concludes
the removal of Dr. Fletcher was according to
Republican precedents. and therefore right.
The argument is, if Presidents Grant and
Hayes removed Republicans from Office, Pres
ident Harrison has a right to remove Demo
Gratis, thus recognizing the principle OF rotation
in Office, and giving all chance. Regarding
the other branch Of the defense, the Sentine.
says, 1--WE have the fact that the insane in
the Indiana Hospital are cured equal in per
cent. of patients to any institution in the
world, hence the conclusion that the physi-
clans are eminently capable, food good and
attention humane, else the cures would go to
the minimum instead of the maximum.
Therefore, it concludes the management is
good and the removal of DIR. Fletcher was
right. These arguments would be laughable
if the case were not too serious for laughter.
The idea of citing President Grants action in
removing Andrew Johnson's postmasters in
justification of the removal of Dr. Fletcher is
only equaleO Dy the aDSufO1CY OF the OLner
argument, viz, that he was justly removed
because under his SUPPLEMENTARY many
of Indianas insane have been cured. This
miserable attempt to defend the trustees is
worse than no defense at all, for it emphasizes
the fact that the act admits of none It can
no more be defended than the tally sheet for
geries could be, and in respect of political
morals and motives the two are about OH
par. The hand of the gang is visible in both
cases and the ends arrived at are as plain in
one as in the other. In one it was the capture
of the Marion Criminal Court, and in the
other of the Indiana Hospital for the Insane.
In searching for a motive for the action
of the trustees it is not necessary to go back to
General Grants administration, nor to cite the
record of cures in the asylum. DR.. Fletcher was
removed because he would not stand in with
the corrupt ring that has been plundering
the institution, and because he stood in the
way of their further operations. 1t is an act
that admits of no defense whatever, as the
ridiculous attempt of the Sentinel in that di-
rection clearly proves.